No, sorry. That isn’t at all reasonable. What’s more reasonable is to prevent someone from not having a weapon capable of mass murder in the first place. We can do that. It’s better than arming everyone.
4 Likes
That’s still subjective. It doesn’t measure the viability of various actions.
No, not really. Not unless you’re deliberately attempting to dissemble.
Dissemble?! You made a statement without clarification, then in response to my comment pointed to some other options with qualities that are sane. What does that mean? Again what do you mean by reasonable?
Therefore you don’t need to defend yourself against this fantasy scenario, therefore you don’t need a firearm.
Fantasy scenario? You specifically outlined a scenario, I commented.
therefore you don’t need a firearm
How does that follow? A firearm is one of the best tools for self-defense against an aggressor. How would you suggest individuals protect themselves?
Lol.
You are a cowardly scaredy cat.
4 Likes
I specifically offered an alternative, a solution. I didn’t offer an adjective.
So it’s more reasonable to prevent, by some mysterious method, someone, I assume you mean a violent person, from having a weapon capable of mass murder, I assume again… a gun.
So, what is this mysterious method? And how is it more reasonable than potential victims being armed?
Ad Hominem? Well done. Maybe if victims just hurled insults that would resolve potential violent aggressors.
It is more reasonable to try to prevent death through less violent means than arming every man, woman, and toddler and expect that to lead to less death.
An armed American society is a statistically very impolite society.
Mocking any reality but the one we live in is certainly unreasonable. There is nothing wrong with looking for more creative, less horrorshow solutions.
7 Likes
@Phrenological, @JonS, and @stupendousman: can we agree that this conversation has no good trajectory, and therefore would be better off truncated with photos of cake and kitten GIFs?
9 Likes
Is that what I offered as a solution? Of course not.
But if someone wish to use violence against a peaceful person their best defense is to stop the aggressor. A gun is a perfect tool for this.
This seems rather obvious to me. Many government employees carry guns for self-defense.
An armed American society is an impolite society.
Seems correlation doesn’t support your assertion. Gun ownership continues to increase while crime continues to decrease.
It seems to me that ending the War on Drugs would be the best method to reduce most violent crime in the US. Why isn’t this the argument against the Trump campaign’s statements?
Can you source this for me? What I found from the press release from her office was:
The notice makes clear that the guidance will not be enforced against gun owners who bought or sold these weapons prior to July 20, 2016.
1 Like
Sounds good to me.
Of course I don’t advocate stripping people of a fundamental human right- that of self-defense. But, sure bring on the kittens.
I only have a confused robot
1 Like
EAT THE CAEK KITTEH!
5 Likes
4 Likes
Not selling assault rifles to the general public is a good start. Ownership of a military grade assault weapon is not a basic human right and has no purpose but making mass murder easy to accomplish.
4 Likes
See
See the original letter of “guidance” she issued
"
Application of this Enforcement Notice (individual gun owners): The
Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an
Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016. The AGO reserves the right
to alter or amend this guidance."
1 Like
Note also that the terms of the “guidance” are so vague as to qualify ANY semi-automatic rifle
as a “assault weapon”. The AG’s office has stated to me personally that a bolt action rifle which takes an AR15 magazine will be classified as a “assault weapon”. I hope you understand how completely out of control this politician is. The legislature, chock full of Democratic liberals who are to the left of Chairman Mao, has plenty of members who are more than a little uncomfortable with her power grab.
1 Like
Here are two quick and easily verified ones:
"What is needed is domestic disarmament. This is the policy of practically all other Western democracies, from Canada to Britain to Germany, from France to Scandinavia. Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands and, ultimately, from much of the police force. Once guns are hard to obtain and the very possession and sale of them are offenses, the level of violent crime will fall significantly."
https://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html
"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.
Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999
I would really rather not debate the pros and cons of gun control, but I am willing to address the “nobody wants to ban guns” talking point.
I can completely understand that some people are opposed to gun ownership. But own it. Don;t say you are in favor of “common sense safety measures”, and don’t keep repeating the mantra that nobody wants to ban guns. Of course some people, including some of those in government, want to do that. Saying that “nobody wants to ban guns” puts you in the same position as people who want to impose abortion restrictions only because they are worried about the safety of women. It is obvious that you are being disingenuous.
3 Likes
Well you can’t buy one in the US unless it’s pre-84 I think the date is. And then it’s very expensive and requires a very involved documentation chain.
Personally I would like a machine gun for shooting. It would be a lot of fun.
But I don’t think I have any right to decide what other people do, what they can buy. As long as they’re not hurting others.
